Motif composition, conservation and condition-specificity of single and alternative transcription start sites in the Drosophila genome
© Rach et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
Received: 29 December 2008
Accepted: 9 July 2009
Published: 9 July 2009
Transcription initiation is a key component in the regulation of gene expression. mRNA 5' full-length sequencing techniques have enhanced our understanding of mammalian transcription start sites (TSSs), revealing different initiation patterns on a genomic scale.
To identify TSSs in Drosophila melanogaster, we applied a hierarchical clustering strategy on available 5' expressed sequence tags (ESTs) and identified a high quality set of 5,665 TSSs for approximately 4,000 genes. We distinguished two initiation patterns: 'peaked' TSSs, and 'broad' TSS cluster groups. Peaked promoters were found to contain location-specific sequence elements; conversely, broad promoters were associated with non-location-specific elements. In alignments across other Drosophila genomes, conservation levels of sequence elements exceeded 90% within the melanogaster subgroup, but dropped considerably for distal species. Elements in broad promoters had lower levels of conservation than those in peaked promoters. When characterizing the distributions of ESTs, 64% of TSSs showed distinct associations to one out of eight different spatiotemporal conditions. Available whole-genome tiling array time series data revealed different temporal patterns of embryonic activity across the majority of genes with distinct alternative promoters. Many genes with maternally inherited transcripts were found to have alternative promoters utilized later in development. Core promoters of maternally inherited transcripts showed differences in motif composition compared to zygotically active promoters.
Our study provides a comprehensive map of Drosophila TSSs and the conditions under which they are utilized. Distinct differences in motif associations with initiation pattern and spatiotemporal utilization illustrate the complex regulatory code of transcription initiation.
Transcription is a crucial part of gene expression that involves complex interactions of cis-regulatory sequence elements and trans-factors. It is mediated in large part through the binding of transcription factors (TFs) to DNA sequence motifs. The majority of eukaryotic genes (protein-coding genes and many regulatory RNAs) are transcribed by RNA polymerase II (RNA pol II), an enzyme that contains various subunits and can exist in a holoenzyme complex with several basal TFs, including TFIIB and TFIIF . As RNA pol II does not have a direct affinity for the DNA, general TFs that bind to sequence motifs in the 100-bp region immediately surrounding the transcription start site (TSS), called the core promoter, guide it to the site of transcription initiation [2–4]. The set of general TFs includes TFIID, which consists of the TATA-box binding protein (TBP) and 10 to 14 TBP-associated factors (TAFs), along with TFIIH, and others.
Recent high throughput sequencing efforts based on 5' capping protocols have now generated capped transcripts for human and mouse on a high throughput scale under numerous conditions [5–7]. These '5'-capped' or 'cap-trapped' transcripts have helped to identify genomic TSS locations for thousands of genes, in particular for human, mouse and yeast [8–10]. This approach revealed that transcription is often initiated across widespread genomic locations, making it non-trivial to define initiation sites [5, 7–11]. Two general initiation patterns have been characterized in mammalian core promoters. The first contains those with tags mapping to a 'single dominant peak,' whose promoters have strong over-representations of canonical motifs, such as the TATA box, GC box, CCAAT motif, and comparatively low frequencies of CpG islands. Gene Ontology (GO) analyses have shown that single dominant peaks are associated with developmental regulation and specialized differentiation processes . The second type of initiation pattern comprises 'broad regions' whose promoters have TATA-poor profiles and are enriched in CpG islands. Broad regions are associated with more ubiquitously expressed transcripts with housekeeping functions, such as RNA processing and the ubiquitin cycle . The large scale of available data allows for detailed analyses; for instance, one study explored the importance of precise spacing between the TATA box and the TSS .
Until recently, data comparable in scope to the capped analysis of gene expression (CAGE) sets for mouse and human have not been available for Drosophila genomes [14, 15], but a large number of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) generated from different conditions have been sequenced in D. melanogaster using 5' capping technology . Using these, several computational efforts have focused on the locations and frequencies of sequence motifs found in core promoters. The TATA box (TATA), initiator (INR), downstream core promoter element (DPE), and motif ten element (MTE) have been identified with distinct spacing requirements relative to the TSS . Each of these motifs has been found at a comparatively low frequency, but several analyses have identified common additional motifs enriched in core promoters [18, 19]. GO and microarray analyses have proved valuable in associating individual sequence elements with various functional terms, such as germline expression, and the embryo and adult stages of the fruit fly life cycle . A different analysis showed that specific motif combinations, or modules, frequently occur in core promoters . These modules are hallmarks of distinct core promoter types, and have been shown in a study of genes associated with highly conserved non-coding elements to characterize three main functional classes of genes in D. melanogaster: developmental regulation, housekeeping, and tissue-specific differentiation . Such functional classes have also been associated with different modes of RNA pol II occupancy .
The core promoter elements and modules also offer deeper insight into the higher level organization of core promoter architecture. Genomic analyses are increasingly complemented by the elucidation of epigenetic patterns, such as the positioning of nucleosomes and the presence of certain histone marks [23, 24]. Previous analyses used polytene chromosome staining and chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)-on-chip to show the existence of two distinct transcriptional programs in D. melanogaster: TBP-related factor 2 (TRF2) regulation of TATA-less transcription, including the genes encoding linker histone H1; and TBP-regulated transcription, including transcription of promoters of the core histones H2A/B, and H3/H4 . However, the degree to which the core promoter motifs/modules and epigenetic features are correlated with the patterns of transcription initiation and their usage during the stages of embryogenesis has not yet been explored in D. melanogaster.
In addition to the variability of initiation observed at a small scale at many individual start sites, a wide range of animal genes also possess clearly separated alternative promoters that are associated with specific functional consequences . The extent to which such condition-specific variability is reflected in mammalian and Drosophila core promoters is so far mostly unclear. Several well-known D. melanogaster genes are known to use well-separated alternative promoters under different conditions. For instance, the transcriptional activator Hunchback (Hb) has two isoforms with different maternal (distal promoter) and zygotic (proximal promoter) patterns of initiation [27, 28]. Alcohol dehydrogenase (Adh) utilizes two promoters, one during embryonic development and the second in adulthood . As the presence and levels of TFs vary across tissues and time periods, arrangements of binding sites with which the TFs associate in the promoter region should reflect, to a certain degree, the conditions under which a specific core promoter is utilized [30, 31]. However, genome-wide expression studies are typically based on gene-wide probes located in the coding or 3' untranslated regions. As a result, expression patterns made on a whole gene basis, such as those in FlyAtlas , in various conditions , neglect differences in distinct transcript variants. Low-throughput studies using primer extension or 5'RACE (rapid amplification of 5' complementary DNA ends) to evaluate the utilization of promoters at a higher resolution have also been typically done under one condition. This has restricted possible conclusions about the condition-specific usage of alternative promoters. Recent studies on tissue-specific TAFs showed that the core machinery is remodeled in specific conditions [34, 35]. It is expected that the specificity of TAFs is encoded in additional core promoter sequence elements, although the sequence elements governing this regulation have been elusive.
In this work, we use available large-scale data to provide an extensive, high-quality mapping of alternative TSSs across the fruit fly genome. We show that core promoter elements and their corresponding modules are associated with peaked and broad patterns of transcription initiation. We also confirm that motif matches are highly conserved in the peaked promoters of TSSs, but show considerable variation in the broad promoters of TSS cluster groups. Next, we identify distinct associations of TSSs with spatiotemporal conditions based on the Shannon entropy of EST frequencies from different libraries. We investigate the specificity of alternative promoters at higher temporal resolution using available expression data from tiling arrays during embryonic development. Lastly, we identify intriguing trends of core promoter elements and their corresponding modules in maternally and zygotically utilized sites. Our analysis demonstrates that sequence elements in core promoters are directly associated with initiation patterns and the spatiotemporal conditions under which they are utilized.
Identification and assessment of alternative start sites
EST clustering identifies a high-quality set of alternative transcription start sites
Previous studies on Drosophila promoters have often been based on the analysis of upstream sequences extracted from a genomic resource such as Flybase , using the most 5' location of a gene as the site of transcription initiation. However, using a resource in this way invariably leads to inconsistent assignment of TSS locations; for instance, many Flybase transcript annotations begin with a start codon, indicating that no transcript evidence is available and making the annotation incomplete on the 5' end. Filtering out such simple cases does not mean that the remaining transcripts are automatically 5' complete. While the accuracy of TSS annotations have considerably improved with increasing available data , the use of high throughput 5' capping methodologies to identify TSSs has also revealed dispersed patterns of transcription initiation in mammalian genomes [5, 7]. These patterns have challenged the validity of choosing the most 5' observed location as being the consistently utilized site.
Thus, we are not confident in the reliability and quality of TSS data extracted from general-purpose genomic annotations because we cannot be sure which of the annotated 5' ends reflects a complete transcript, and which ones accurately capture a true and consistently used TSS. Other previous analyses in D. melanogaster were based on high quality TSSs, but were smaller in size and depth. For instance, our previous core promoter study covered 1,941 TSSs, but did not include alternative start sites . The Eukaryotic Promoter Database (EPD) incorporates highly confident TSSs identified from the curation of ESTs and is of a similar magnitude to our previous study . Here, we continue the tradition of using ESTs for TSS identification, but with the goal of identifying all of the consistently utilized and precisely defined TSSs, rather than the most 5' ones.
To minimize experimental error and clearly distinguish true TSSs from background noise, it is essential to filter available 5' transcript data. To accomplish this, we started from the large dataset of D. melanogaster ESTs in the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Collection (BDGC; Additional data file 1) [16, 39]. A significant fraction of ESTs were obtained with a protocol designed at the RIKEN institute to capture capped full-length transcripts , similar to the more recent and larger mammalian efforts. This subset is therefore expected to map to the exact starting locations of known transcripts. While the amount of available ESTs is not large enough to completely saturate the transcriptome, it had until recently been the largest amount of transcript data for Drosophila. We mapped the BDGC ESTs derived from 15 different libraries to 8 distinct conditions: embryo, larva/pupa, head, ovary, testes, Schneider cells, mbn2 hemocytic cells, and fat body. A broad adult stage can be accounted for by combining the promoter associations of the head, ovary, testes, mbn2 hemocytic cell, and fat body. Additional libraries from more than one body part or time period, an unknown source, or additional conditions to those examined here were assigned to one default condition called 'diverse'. By using independently generated cDNA libraries, we expect to reduce potential experimental biases from any one library due to incomplete reverse transcription (Additional data file 1). This list of EST-library derived conditions is certainly limited, but it enables an initial analysis of promoter utilization in different life stages and differentiated tissues.
Alternative transcription start sites are a widespread phenomenon in the fly genome
We identified 5,665 TSSs for 3,990 genes (Additional data file 2), nearly three times the number of TSSs and twice as many genes as in our earlier study . More than half of the filtered ESTs were removed in hierarchical clustering and TSS selection. The largest decrease in the number of ESTs during TSS selection was observed for the diverse category. This indicates that data from more variable sources show less consistent TSS locations compared to RIKEN cap-trapped data. TSS locations with overlapping core promoter sequences - that is, less than 100 bp from each other - were grouped into non-overlapping TSS cluster groups spanning longer promoter regions. Below, the TSSs in TSS cluster groups are analyzed on two levels: as sites of individual initiation locations, and together when evaluating broad promoters.
When TSS locations were considered individually, there were 2,765 genes (69%) with one TSS, and 1,225 genes (31%) with alternative TSS locations. The 1,225 genes with alternative TSS locations were evaluated according to the initiation patterns of their promoters, and for 685 genes (56%) the alternative TSS locations were in one broad promoter, while for 540 genes (44%) the alternative TSS locations were in alternative promoters of the peaked or broad type, or any combination thereof. Genes with alternative promoters were distributed across chromosomes 2L, 2R, 3L, 3R, and X (Figure S1 in Additional data file 1). There may be additional alternative initiation sites upstream or downstream of those listed here that were not considered due to a lack of EST support.
The mean genomic distance from TSSs to the most upstream start codon annotated in release 4.3 was 1,353 bp, with a median of 264 bp. This is 91 bp smaller than our previous estimate of 1,444 bp between TSS and start codon using chromosome 2R . This difference is likely due to the earlier strategy of Ohler et al. using the most 5' ESTs to define sites of transcription initiation, rather than our use of the most highly utilized locations as TSSs. For genes with a consistent downstream start codon annotation, 141 TSSs were more than 10,000 bp upstream of the closest start codon. This observation of large distances between TSSs and their corresponding start codons agrees with high frequencies of large distances between TSSs and start codons found in D. melanogaster using tiling arrays . Due to the clustering criteria, the minimal distance between two alternative TSSs was 20 bp, with the most common distance ranging from 25 to 35 bp. This is different from the more high-resolution definition of alternative TSSs that was employed in studies using high-throughput 5' cap trapping data . As a result, canonical core promoter sequence elements that occur at precise distances from the TSS, such as the INR, TATA box or DPE, can be clearly assigned to individual promoters.
The maximum number of individual TSSs identified per gene was seven for the genes CG33113 (Rtnl1), CG14039 (quick-to-court), and CG11525 (CycG). Flybase listed three fewer alternative TSSs for quick-to-court, and four fewer for CycG in release 5.11 . Seven transcript isoforms for Rtnl1 and quick-to-court, and three transcript isoforms for CycG are annotated for these genes. Whereas some of the TSSs of CycG and quick-to-court are close to each other and combined in cluster groups, all of the TSSs of Rtnl1 are well-separated peaked TSSs. Due to the stringent selection criteria we employed in the clustering strategy, genes with more than seven promoters may exist, but we found the most common range of alternative TSSs to be much lower.
Due to the definition of the TSS cluster groups, the minimal distance between TSSs in alternative TSS cluster groups is 101 bp, and the most common intra-cluster distance ranges from 101 to 199 bp. There were 55 TSS cluster groups separated by more than 10 kb. It is estimated that noncoding 5' and 3' DNA each comprise approximately 2 kb of intergenic sequence, and that intergenic distances increase with regulatory complexity . Genes performing house-keeping functions, such as ribosomal constituents and general TFs, are commonly spaced in 4 to 5 kb segments of DNA. Genes with more complex roles, such as in embryonic development and/or pattern specification, take up 17 to 25 kb of DNA on average. This suggests that some of the alternative TSSs/cluster groups separated by large distances may experience more complex transcriptional regulation.
Presence and conservation of core promoter motifs
Sequence elements are associated with different initiation patterns
For more than 20 years, it has been known that some promoters are highly position-specific, while others are spread over larger regions . The analysis of large-scale CAGE data in mammals has confirmed the presence of peaked and broad promoters as a general phenomenon, and led to a more precise definition of four different promoter shapes reflecting different initiation patterns : 1, single-peaked or focused; 2, broad or dispersed; 3, multimodal; and 4, broad with peak(s). In the clustering analysis above, we identified two types of promoters: 'peaked ' for single TSSs, and 'broad' for TSS cluster groups. The scale of the available fly data does not allow for a more precise sub-classification, but the two groups resemble the categories found in mammals to some extent, with the broad promoters being a potential combination of categories 2 to 4.
Compared to mammals, analyses of the Drosophila genome have identified a larger set of sequence motifs enriched in core promoters. Ohler et al.  predicted a set of ten motifs in the [-60,+40] bp region surrounding the TSS; Fitzgerald et al.  later identified 13 motifs with enrichment in the same region, including nine of the ten motifs from Ohler et al. This knowledge allowed us to investigate whether the peaked and broad promoters were associated with specific core promoter elements, similar to the TATA box and CpG island biases found in mammals . We focused on eight of the ten motifs in Ohler et al. that have either been biologically validated or previously reported as building blocks for core promoter sequence modules. The eight motifs included four location-specific canonical motifs (TATA, INR, DPE, and MTE) , and four motifs that have weaker positional biases, but were found to frequently co-occur in a specific order and orientation (Ohler 1, DNA replication element (DRE), Ohler 6, and Ohler 7) [19, 20]. Of the latter, only the role of the DRE in the recruitment of the polymerase has been unraveled . We evaluated the occurrence of these eight motifs and their most frequently occurring modules in 3,788 peaked and 876 broad promoters (see Materials and methods). Because there were far more peaked promoters than broad promoters, their core promoters covered a three times larger genomic region. To provide an equal measure across both sets, and across motifs with differences in location preferences, motif matches were counted anywhere in the promoters, and the numbers of motifs found were then normalized to the number of occurrences per 100 kb. For an estimation of the numbers of motif frequencies expected by chance, the analysis was repeated on three sets of 100-bp regions surrounding randomly selected intergenic sites.
The greatest difference in element frequency between peaked and broad promoters was observed for the INR and DRE. This suggests that the DRE may be of equal importance to transcription for broad promoters as the INR is for the peaked promoters. All motif observations were higher than the mean number of occurrences found across the three random intergenic sets, and random occurrence rates corresponded well to the expectation based on motif score cutoffs. When motifs in peaked promoters were constrained to their functional locations (see Materials and methods), the same trends of occurrences were observed (Figure S3a in Additional data file 1). We did not analyze restricted motif locations for the broad promoters, as multiple TSS reference points in the TSS cluster groups prevented distinct assignments within the overlapping core promoters.
Next, we evaluated the presence of combinations, or modules, of known elements in the core promoters of the peaked TSSs and broad TSS cluster groups. A previous study had identified five different core promoter modules, which we evaluated here: TATA/INR, INR/MTE, INR/DPE, Ohler 6/1, and Ohler 7/DRE  (see Materials and methods; Additional data file 1). Figure 4b shows that the TATA/INR, INR/MTE, and INR/DPE modules occurred more frequently in the peaked promoters, and the Ohler 6/1 and Ohler 7/DRE modules were more prevalent in the broad promoters. This corresponds with our results of the occurrences of the individual elements. It also shows that even though the Ohler 6 and Ohler 7 elements have a lower positional bias, they occur in a specific order within binding modules. All module occurrences in peaked and broad promoters were far above the mean number found in the three random intergenic sets, although higher numbers of the most frequent modules appeared in the broad promoters than in those of peaked promoters. This reaffirms that the broad core promoters of TSS cluster groups have a higher density of the most frequent modules of motifs than those of individual TSSs. Extending the analysis to three elements is limited by the rareness of such events, but analyses indicated that INR/MTE/DPE and TATA/INR/DPE occurred more often than triplets of elements with less positional bias (data not shown).
Finally, peaked core promoters were found to have higher frequencies of G (0.229) and C (0.234) than broad core promoters (G, 0.211; C, 0.224) and the 100-bp sequences surrounding the random intergenic sites (G, 0.203; C, 0.205). These results confirm previous work showing that core promoters with the DPE, INR, and TATA/INR have a moderate GC content, and core promoters with the DRE, and Ohler 1/6 elements have a GC-poor profile . With this analysis, we show that the GC content is not only characteristic of core promoter elements, but also of initiation patterns of transcription.
Conservation of sequence elements differs across initiation patterns
While this analysis showed clear trends, it did not indicate whether such observations could arise from chance. We therefore determined the fraction of pairwise conserved motif matches by dividing the number of conserved motif instances in the preferred window over the total number of occurrences anywhere in the D. melanogaster promoters. After repeating this analysis on a set of similar sized random intergenic sequences, we took the ratio between promoters and random sequences as the motif enrichment score; for D. melanogaster alone, this score simply indicated the enrichment of hits in the preferred window (Figure 5b). In general, ratios were higher for the position-specific motifs INR, TATA, MTE, and DPE, with the INR exceeding enrichments of 30-fold. While there was a lower but consistent score for Ohler 1 and DRE, the motifs Ohler 6 and Ohler 7 did not clearly exceed a ratio of 1 in D. melanogaster, indicating that the preferred windows taken from  were not actually enriched above background. The total number of conserved instances was quite low for these motifs, and the higher scores seen for more distantly related species may be regarded with caution, as they could simply be a side effect of the small sample size. Nonetheless, we saw that the motifs that were less restricted in their relative location to the TSS showed a lower level of conservation in the aligned locations.
Given that these two motif sets were shown to be associated with different initiation patterns, we assessed whether motifs in peaked promoters exhibited different conservation patterns than those in broad promoters. Figure 5c shows that there are indeed strong differences in the conservation levels of motifs across initiation patterns. Conservation levels of localized motifs (TATA, INR, DPE, MTE) were consistently higher when they occurred at peaked TSSs versus TSSs in broad promoters. This trend was mirrored in a somewhat weaker fashion by the set of motifs with lower positional preference (Ohler 1, DRE, Ohler 6, Ohler 7), which were more conserved in peaked than broad promoters. Observations on promoter conservation and TSS turnover have been reported for human-mouse comparisons supported by 5' capped tag data . In particular, findings indicated that some alternative promoters experience a lower negative selective pressure, and this may reflect an intermediary stage of a TSS turnover event. Our findings here indicate that selective pressure on the motifs in promoters also depends on the initiation patterns, with evidence that broad promoters may experience more frequent functional motif turnover due to the lowered restrictions on relative spacing of enriched motifs, and/or the presence of other functional promoters in the close vicinity.
Looking at the conservation of motifs for the ttk case study (Figure 3), we recall that two INR motifs were present in the preferred location of the peaked promoters of TSS#1 and TSS#3. The initiator motif in the TSS#1 promoter was conserved across all 12 species, and the initiator in the TSS#3 promoter was conserved within the 5 species of the melanogaster subgroup. This illustrates the existence of differences in motif occurrence and conservation levels at alternative start sites.
Condition-specific utilization of promoters
Transcription start sites have distinct associations with conditions derived from EST libraries
Sites of transcription initiation are determined by the conditions under which transcription factors mediate the recruitment of RNA pol II to the core promoter. Associations of TSSs with conditions can give insight into the utilization and organization of TF binding sites in core promoters. For this reason, we characterized the condition associations of the set of 5,665 TSSs identified from (sub-)clusters in the hierarchical clustering of 5' ESTs in D. melanogaster, regardless of initiation pattern, into three groups (condition-specific, condition-supported, mixed) using Shannon entropy (see Materials and methods; Additional data file 1). As mentioned above, the cDNA library information for each of the ESTs was mapped to one of eight distinct conditions (embryo, larva/pupa, head, ovary, testes, Schneider cells, mbn2 hemocytic cells, and fat body) plus a default (diverse) category. Overall, the data are more descriptive of spatial body parts than of well-resolved temporal stages of Drosophila development.
When considering condition associations on a gene level, the numbers of specific, supported, and mixed TSSs did not significantly differ for genes with alternative TSSs compared to those having single TSSs, indicating that the presence of condition associations for more than one core promoter is a common phenomenon across all conditions. Because we assigned conditions to individual TSSs, it was possible for the 1,225 genes with alternative TSSs to have more than one association. We thus divided genes with alternative TSSs into two groups: genes whose TSSs had different condition associations, if at least one TSS had at least one different association from the gene's remaining TSSs; and genes with the same condition associations for all of the alternative initiation sites. In our dataset, 392 (32%) genes with alternative TSSs had the same condition association, and over two times that number of genes with alternative TSSs (833; 68%), had different condition associations. The number of genes with different conditions was significantly lower than expected when evaluated using random permutations of the condition association labels (P << 0.001; Additional data file 1). However, with additional conditions and ESTs, we expect to observe a larger percentage of alternative TSSs with different associations.
For the previously mentioned example gene ttk, all three TSSs had embryo associations. The two most upstream TSSs were embryo-supported, and the third downstream TSS was embryo-specific. The associations corresponded to the known expression of the gene during embryogenesis for various functions, including the regulation of proper development of tissues  and the determination of cell-fate . This association of ttk's TSSs exemplifies typical patterns seen for the set of 392 genes with alternative TSSs having the same condition associations. Additional examples of the EST condition associations confirming known expression patterns and developmental regulation of genes are provided in Additional data file 1. While these assignments do not determine function, they help to define the scope of alternative promoter utilization and contribute novel information about expression patterns.
Differences in the temporal utilization of alternative promoters during embryogenesis
While we observed a significant enrichment of alternative TSS associations with the same conditions, EST libraries are too broad to distinguish differences in the precise timing of a promoter's temporal utilization. To examine initiation events at higher resolution, we used available Affymetrix whole-genome tiling arrays of D. melanogaster embryonic expression. The data were a natural fit to our analysis because expression of genes was monitored at 12 time points during the first 24 hours of the developing D. melanogaster embryo, each covering a 2-hour period . Embryogenesis has been well studied in Drosophila, and the morphological changes that occur have been examined in depth. The control of transcription initiation during early embryogenesis involves well-known TFs, such as Kruppel and Eve . Their utilization has become an important model system for studying the complexity of gene regulation.
Temporal biases of transcriptional activity were seen in the tiling array when the total number of promoters was divided into peaked and broad. After normalization by the total number of promoters in each set, a statistically significant higher fraction of broad promoters was utilized than peaked promoters in the tiling array (P << 0.01; Figure 7b; see Materials and methods). The difference was greatest in the first and second 2-hour periods, and reached an additional maximum at time points 5 and 11. While it continued to decrease after time point 5, the difference remained through time point 12. Overall, 56.6% of peaked promoters were transcribed in at least one of the 2-hour periods, and 67.8%, or 11.2% more, broad promoters were transcribed in at least one period. The pattern that broad promoters were more transcriptionally active during embryogenesis than peaked promoters was separately mirrored using the EST associations alone, without the tiling array data (P << 0.01; see Materials and methods). Here, initiation sites were deemed to have an embryo EST association if an individual TSS, or at least one of the TSSs in a TSS cluster group, had the association, resulting in 50.3% of TSSs and 74.3% of the TSS cluster groups having embryo-specific or embryo-supported associations. When comparing the condition associations of both promoter types across EST and tiling array experiments, we saw consistency in embryonic utilization of promoters (Figure 7a; Additional data file 1).
Finally, the time course tiling data allowed us to consider temporal patterns of promoter activity and individual TSSs in greater detail. The most frequent patterns for all promoters (peaked and broad) were 'all off' - that is, no utilization during any period (41%) - and 'all on' - that is, expression for the entire 24-hour duration of embryogenesis (5.8%; 272 TSSs). Patterns observed for more than five promoters are listed in Additional data file 6. In particular, we explored the profiles of genes with alternative promoters in greater depth (Additional data file 1). In this analysis, we excluded broad promoters from the set of 540 genes with alternative TSSs separated by at least 100 bp, on account of their lack of precise individual TSS resolution, and divided the remaining 407 genes into four categories. The first category consisted of 143 genes (35%) with no expression from any peaked promoters at any time point. The second category comprised 170 genes (42%) with exactly one alternative promoter active during embryogenesis. In this group, 75 genes showed expression at time point 1 and their promoters were thus maternally utilized. The third category included 20 genes (5%) with more than one but not all alternative peaked promoters utilized during embryogenesis. The remaining 74 genes (18%) in the fourth category had all alternative peaked promoters utilized at some time during embryogenesis.
All three peaked promoters of the ttk gene were separated by at least 100 bp and each had an EST association with the embryo. Typical of the set of genes with the same EST conditions, temporal analysis of the alternative promoters revealed different patterns of utilization. Figure 8 shows the tiling array utilization and in situ staining of the complex patterns of gene expression observed for ttk during each stage of embryogenesis. While further experimental verification is needed to decipher the association between the spatiotemporal patterns and the utilization of each of ttk's alternative promoters, RNA in situ images show the existence of distinct expression patterns at different stages that are consistent with the usage of alternative promoters .
Core promoters of maternally inherited and zygotically active transcription start sites have characteristic profiles of sequence elements
The presence of the two types of core promoters defined by different initiation patterns in Drosophila and vertebrates suggests that each may have a functional importance. To determine potential associations with specific conditions, we first compared the motif composition of 370 peaked promoters with head-specific TSS EST associations, and 765 peaked promoters with embryo-specific TSS EST associations (see Materials and methods). While we saw small differences between motif frequencies in the embryo and head-specific promoters, no clear trends for condition-enriched motifs were observed (Additional data file 1). This most likely resulted from the low resolution of these conditions, as both 'head' and 'embryo' encompass numerous tissues across various developmental stages.
Akin to individual motif analysis, the occurrences of the TATA/INR, INR/MTE, INR/DPE, Ohler 6/1, and Ohler 7/DRE modules were evaluated separately for maternal and zygotic utilization (see Materials and methods). The results showed that the TATA/INR, INR/MTE, and INR/DPE modules had higher frequencies in the zygotically transcribed peaked promoters, and the Ohler 6/1 and Ohler 7/DRE modules had higher frequencies in the maternally utilized peaked promoters. Similarly, the numbers for promoters with both maternal and zygotic transcription initiation agreed with the maternally utilized module frequencies once again (Figure 9b). The same trends were observed for broad promoters (data not shown). In summary, these findings therefore complement the associations of initiation patterns with motifs, and propose that specific core promoter elements are more frequently utilized during different stages of development.
The identification of 5,665 TSSs from hierarchical 5' EST clustering provides a comprehensive map of reliable TSSs in D. melanogaster that should serve as a useful resource for information regarding condition-specific transcription initiation, and for computational modeling of promoter regions. Nevertheless, the saturation of the D. melanogaster transcriptome by available ESTs is certainly incomplete, and additional TSSs will certainly exist beyond the high quality set identified in this work. While promoters of alternative TSSs that are active under different spatiotemporal conditions have been reported for several individual fly genes [27, 29], our analysis here establishes distinct spatiotemporal utilization of alternative promoters as a common feature in D. melanogaster. Some individual designations may result from biases due to the comparatively low coverage of ESTs or, in the case of the tiling arrays, from transcript expression levels falling below the sensitivity of the microarrays; however, the overall results strongly indicate that usage of many alternative promoters is condition-dependent. In humans, previous work has shown that the aberrant use of alternative promoters is associated with various diseases, such as cancer . Genomic similarities that can be observed in the usage of promoters of alternative TSSs under different conditions in both humans and Drosophila may provide insight into downstream effects on transcripts and the mechanisms governing disease (Additional data file 1).
The promoters of alternative TSSs may also be utilized under the same broad EST-derived conditions. In fact, there was a higher than expected number of genes with alternative TSSs having the same condition associations. Alternative TSSs with the same condition associations may result from a series of point mutations, or be created anew through promoter sequence duplication . In cases where there is no selective pressure to maintain all alternative sites, the promoters should exhibit a lower level of sequence conservation. This was in fact what we observed for the motifs of broad promoters in our set. On the other hand, there are cases in which the functional maintenance of several peaked promoters is linked to the same condition, and the promoters of these genes should exhibit a higher level of conservation. As an example, the enhancer for the yellow gene has been shown to interact with a promoter in cis and a promoter in trans based on core promoter composition . A possible experimental validation of specific expression patterns linked to alternative promoters includes RNA in situ hybridization during different stages of fly embryogenesis [48, 51]. In situ images are able to capture spatial gene expression patterns at a much higher resolution than ESTs and microarrays. Our study provides promising candidates for the design of isoform-specific probes, which would link differences in the spatial and temporal expression of transcripts of the same gene to different promoters.
Drosophila core promoters distinguish themselves from other eukaryotic species investigated so far by being defined by a repertoire of well-known sequence motifs. Recent work has shown that core transcriptional complexes are remodeled in specific cell types in both mammals and flies [34, 52]. Here, we examined differences in motif frequencies and patterns of spatiotemporal utilization of peaked and broad promoters, which complements a concurrent recent study that explored how promoter motifs relate to one another across alternative promoters and adjacent genes . We showed that peaked promoters have higher frequencies of the location-specific motifs (TATA, INR, DPE, MTE) and their corresponding modules, and higher levels of zygotic utilization. The importance of the location of elements in peaked promoters with respect to the TSS may reflect the binding architecture of zygotic-specific TAFs in RNA pol II. As broad core promoters surrounding maternally inherited sites have a higher number of occurrences of motifs with weaker positional bias (Ohler 1, DRE, Ohler 6, Ohler 7) and their modules, this suggests the hypothesis that larger regions of the DNA may be accessible at these locations. The localization of nucleosomes or specific chromatin marks may affect the accessibility of the DNA under specific conditions and locations, and explain the presence of specific initiation patterns [23, 24]. In addition, a previous study suggested that the promoters recognized by TBP-related factor 2 up-regulate genes required for specific developmental pathways and may be involved in chromatin organization in mammalian gonads .
Our findings suggest that the core promoters of peaked TSSs in Drosophila are functionally equivalent to those of the single dominant peaked TSSs in vertebrates. The peaked promoters in both D. melanogaster and vertebrates have single, well-defined sites of initiation, contain location-specific motifs, and are associated with similar functional subsets of genes. Here, we showed that peaked D. melanogaster promoters are utilized zygotically, confirming previous findings that the promoters of genes with the INR and DPE are associated with developmental regulation and that the TATA is overrepresented in terminally differentiated tissues, such as the cuticle, and endocrine glands [19, 21]. In vertebrates, peaked promoters are known to have an association to more tightly regulated transcripts . In Drosophila, developmentally regulated genes were later shown to be associated with stalling of the RNA pol II machinery , and a circuit involving the TBP, Mot1, and NC2 that controls the regulation of DPE-dependent versus TATA-dependent transcription was shown to exist . This suggests that a larger network regulates the transcriptional balance between functional classes of core promoters. As this analysis characterized individual sites of transcription initiation, and previous studies evaluated associations using whole genes in Drosophila, the functional associations of peaked promoters with developmental regulation and terminally differentiated tissues should be explored in greater depth. Our current set of peaked TSSs may change with additional data, as more detailed information on initiation events may lead to reassignments of patterns to promoters.
Similarly, we propose that the promoters of broad TSS cluster groups in Drosophila are functionally equivalent to broad regions of initiation in vertebrates . Both of them are composed of multiple initiation sites, with no fixed spacing between them, contain motifs without a location enrichment, are void of the location-specific motifs, such as the TATA, and are present in similar functional subsets of genes. By showing that broad promoters are maternally utilized in Drosophila, this work supports previous studies showing that core promoter motifs without a location enrichment are utilized in the embryo, and are associated with housekeeping functions, such as DNA repair and translation, and the proteins necessary to perform them, such as the components of RNA pol II, and mitochondrial proteins [19, 21]. Housekeeping genes with ubiquitous expression are associated with actively transcribing RNA pol II in D. melanogaster , and with broad patterns of initiation in vertebrates . Furthermore, in our analysis, broad promoters were found to contain higher densities of the most frequent motifs and modules. As they define larger domains, broad promoters may be susceptible to higher probabilities of gaining motifs and modules. It will be interesting to explore whether, similar to other genomic properties, including gene family sizes  and protein folds , the relationship between motif density and genomic span of initiation is scale free.
It is important to recognize, however, that we are comparing the functional usage of each 'type' of core promoter across Drosophila and vertebrates, and not the actual sequence features that comprise them, as Drosophila and vertebrates have core promoter sequence features that are uniquely adapted to the transcription initiation machinery of each species. For instance, out of the eight motifs used in this study, only three motifs (TATA, INR, and DPE) have been shown to be functionally relevant for transcription initiation in vertebrates . In turn, other sequence elements that play an important role in vertebrates, such as the downstream core element DCE, are absent in D. melanogaster . The most salient difference between fruit fly and vertebrate promoters regards the presence of CpG islands. In vertebrates, CpG islands are characteristic of broad initiation regions, and are less frequent in peaked promoters, while in D. melanogaster, CpG islands do not exist, and peaked promoters have higher frequencies of G and C than those of broad promoters. This may indicate that the shape of promoters may be independent of the functional properties of CpG islands. The core promoter motifs may have been decoupled from CpG islands, or the properties of CpG methylation, selectively in the evolutionary history of D. melanogaster, as many other insect taxa have CpG methylation and orthologous proteins that catalyze it in vertebrates [58, 59]. Furthermore, the core promoter motifs may be more dependent on the epigenetic features of the genome, such as the organization of histones and histone methylation, rather than on the properties of the DNA sequence itself.
Our study provided a high-quality data set to assess the conservation of core promoter elements across the recently published 12 Drosophila genomes. As we have experimental data for one species, we can only evaluate the loss of a D. melanogaster site in the corresponding location in another species. The fraction of candidates with non-conserved promoter elements in the melanogaster subgroup (approximately 10% depending on the motif and species) agrees with the turnover frequency measured by the ChIP-validated Zeste binding site . The observed conservation levels drop drastically outside the melanogaster subgroup. A larger evolutionary effect in more distal species is certainly expected, but the recently observed low performance of multiple alignment algorithms on distal non-coding regions is likely to be a strong contributor to this observation [61, 62]. Promoters of alternative TSSs, in particular those of broad TSS cluster groups, show a distinctly lower level of conservation of motifs across the 12 Drosophila genomes. This provides initial evidence of an average lower negative selective pressure on alternative and broad promoters, linked to the presence of functional motifs. A possible explanation for this effect was given in a recent TSS study on human and mouse, by using high-throughput CAGE sequence tags . This study showed that alternative TSSs may arise in an intermediate stage of the process of TSS turnover. In support of this, an analysis of primate core promoters gave evidence for accelerated substitution rates .
The presence of canonical core promoter elements has shown that TSSs may be more dynamic than previously thought . In addition to the effects discussed above, the promoters of alternative TSSs are involved in enhancer functionality [66, 67], transcriptional interference , condition-restricted TAF utilization , and the maintenance of internal ribosome entry sites [70, 71]. As the amount of data increases from capturing 4,000 genes in this study to the 13,767 genes present in the D. melanogaster genome, we expect the number of genes with alternative TSSs to scale accordingly. The first sets of 5' capped high-throughput transcript data have become available concurrently with our study, and such data will provide the necessary scale to follow up on our observations .
Our study provides a genome-wide mapping of Drosophila TSSs and the distinct spatiotemporal conditions under which their promoters are utilized. Long underestimated in importance, differences in the motif composition of peaked and broad alternative core promoters have now been shown to be part of the complex spatiotemporal regulatory code of the eukaryotic transcriptome.
Materials and methods
EST filtering and clustering
We used EST alignments from Drosophila release 4.3 to identify TSSs, which enabled us to directly map our results to other available data sources (cross-species alignments and expression data). We filtered the ESTs in a four-step process by first eliminating ESTs that did not cover an intron splice junction. This reassured us that the remaining ESTs were produced from mature transcripts. Second, we removed ESTs having aligned fragments longer than 1,500 nucleotides, or a distance greater than 100 kb between any two fragments. This was done to exclude dubious ESTs that may incorrectly map to the genome. The parameter range of 50 to 100 kb corresponded to an upper bound of the genomic span of fly genes and was previously used as a natural cutoff for the determination of promoter co-regulation . Third, we took out ESTs that aligned to multiple regions to ensure our set contained unambiguous locations. Fourth, we deleted ESTs with the most 5' location mapping to within 2 bp of the start of a downstream exon or transposon, as annotated in release 4.3. This served to eliminate incomplete ESTs, and those utilized by transposons. The 157,093 ESTs that remained were deemed highly confident in mapping to the most 5' ends of coding transcripts.
We implemented a hierarchical clustering strategy to define individual TSSs (Figure 2). We first parsed the ESTs by associating each of the 157,093 filtered ESTs with corresponding genes and dividing all of the ESTs for each gene into broad windows. Adjacent ESTs that were less than 100 bp apart were assigned to the same window, while adjacent ESTs greater than 100 bp apart were assigned to different windows. The window size of 100 nucleotides is a rule-of-thumb standard that has also been employed by EPD to specify broad regions of transcription initiation . Moreover, the known sequence features directly involved in transcription initiation are all located within ± 50 nucleotides from the TSS, and the core promoter region of each TSS is generally defined to be approximately 100 bp in size. The genomic position of the 5' end of each EST alignment is referred to as the EST location.
We next computed the standard deviation of EST locations, and iteratively divided windows into smaller clusters until each had a standard deviation of less than 10. We refer to all of the clusters and sub-clusters having a standard deviation less than 10 by the term (sub-)cluster. This was done to discriminate regions of high localized EST frequency from broad regions with low EST frequency. It also served to separate singleton EST outliers into separate (sub-)clusters. The choice of 10 as standard deviation parameter corresponds to a variance of 100 bp and, thus, the size of a core promoter, as defined above.
Transcription start site identification from EST clusters
We identified TSSs from the (sub-)clusters using four criteria. First, we found the location with the highest frequency of ESTs in each (sub-)cluster, and removed (sub-)clusters with a maximum frequency at a single site of less than 2. This criterion selected only those (sub-)clusters with consistently and reproducibly utilized TSSs. If two or more sites were tied for having the highest frequency of ESTs, the upstream site was chosen.
Second, to ensure that predicted locations coincided with the beginning of full-length transcripts, we selected sites that had to be supported by either at least three ESTs from a 5' capped library sequenced by RIKEN , or two RIKEN ESTs and a third EST within 5 bp from any non-RIKEN, non-capped library. For EST clusters without RIKEN ESTs, sites had to be supported by either three ESTs within five nucleotides of the 5' end of the cluster, or have at least half of the ESTs within a (sub-)cluster falling within five nucleotides of each other.
Third, if a cluster contained several TSSs identified for more than one (sub-)cluster, we placed a new window starting at one TSS and ending at the second TSS. If the standard deviation of this new window was less than the cutoff of 10, we kept the site with the higher frequency of ESTs as the TSS and removed the second location from the dataset. If the standard deviation of the new window was greater than 10, we kept both locations as TSS candidates. This eliminated closely spaced TSSs from adjacent (sub-)clusters.
Fourth, we required sites to be upstream of a start codon annotated for the gene in release 4.3. Because ESTs do not span the entire length of a transcript, we generally do not know what downstream isoforms correspond to the TSSs. For this reason, we conservatively required TSSs to be upstream of the most downstream start codon. If any of these criteria were not satisfied, we declared the (sub-)cluster to not have any conclusive TSSs and removed it from further analysis.
Motif presence and conservation analysis
We applied the program PATSER  to the plus strand of the core promoter region [-60,+40] bp immediately surrounding the identified TSSs and the most 5' sites in Flybase, to look for hits to previously published position weight matrices above a threshold. For broad TSS cluster groups, promoter sequence [-60] bp of the most upstream TSS to [+40] bp of the most downstream TSS in the cluster group was extracted. To assess the strength of enrichment and conservation of motifs, we extracted 100-bp sets of sequences surrounding three randomly selected intergenic sets of sites, and repeated motif searches on these sets.
We used relative frequency matrices for eight core promoter motifs reported by Ohler et al.  and that were confirmed by analyses of other groups, for example, Fitzgerald . We estimated set-specific mononucleotide backgrounds to account for varying AT content in the promoter sequences we analyzed (our TSS set; Flybase TSSs; and the random intergenic set). Score thresholds were individually chosen for each position weight matrix, always corresponding to a P-value of 10-3 for the expected false positive hit per nucleotide. As seen in Figure 5b, motif matches in random intergenic regions agreed very well with the expected false positive rate. Motif matrices were taken from Ohler et al. , with one modification. The DPE as reported in that study is a composite of the closely spaced MTE and DPE elements (this can clearly be seen when comparing motif 9 (DPE) and motif 10 (MTE) with previous DPE consensus motifs), which is likely a side effect of the MEME motif-finding strategy employed in that study. To avoid confounding results by overlapping matches, we shortened both DPE and MTE to eight-nucleotide non-overlapping motifs. All frequency matrices and background models are provided in Additional data file 3.
Preferred motif positions were defined differently for location-specific and non-location-specific core motifs. For TATA, INR, DPE and MTE, we used the ten-nucleotide window with the highest number of motif matches in our D. melanogaster TSS set (-38 to -29 for the TATA box starting position, -4 to +6 for the INR motif, +14 to +23 for the MTE, and +21 to +30 for the DPE). These windows overlapped the most enriched motif locations as identified in the Flybase-defined promoter analysis of Fitzgerald et al. . For the other four motifs, we used the 20-nucleotide windows as defined in that study (Ohler 1, -20 to -1; DRE, -60 to -41; Ohler 6, -60 to -41; and Ohler 7, +1 to +20). Note that we restricted motif matches to the preferred windows in some but not all analyses; in particular, preferred windows are somewhat less meaningful when dealing with broad cluster groups that do not exhibit a single initiation site.
For the conservation analysis, we first obtained orthologous regions across the other 11 species  using alignments computed by Multi-LAGAN . Then, we selected promoters of TSSs having alignments in all 12 species, which led to a reduced set of 4,243 TSSs, with 2,075 genes with one TSS and 1,100 genes with more than one. As described above, we scanned orthologous regions in each species for motif hits above the threshold. For the location-specific motifs (TATA, INR, DPE, MTE), we identified matches in the D. melanogaster sequences within the 10-nucleotide preferred windows as defined above; for the other four motifs, we used the most-enriched 20-nucleotide windows . Then, we assessed whether motif matches in D. melanogaster were located at corresponding positions in any of the other 11 genomes. Following the example of , we allowed for ± 5 nucleotides to account for possible small errors in the local alignments at the site of a motif match. In this way, we assessed whether a presumably functional motif, defined by the experimentally deduced location of the TSS and the occurrence of a motif match in the preferred position, was still detected in a second species, or potentially lost.
Shannon entropy to measure condition enrichment
Lastly, we characterized the condition utilization of each (sub-)cluster by using an EST frequency threshold and the penalized entropy values, Qi,tss. Only (sub-)clusters having at least three ESTs from a condition were evaluated further to prevent potential false assignments due to a low frequency of ESTs. The entropy values for H tss ranged from 0 to log2(c), for c = the number of conditions. In our analysis, c = 9 (eight distinct conditions and one diverse condition), and values for Qi,tssranged from 0 to log2(9) - log2(0.0001), or 16.458.
Q values naturally segregated into three clearly distinct groups (Figure S4 in Additional data file 1). Entropy values close to zero signified (sub-)clusters with ESTs mainly from one condition. Larger entropy values characterized (sub-)clusters with ESTs that were more broadly distributed across libraries, but still mainly concentrated in one or two conditions. The greatest entropies denoted (sub-)clusters with ESTs spread across many of the eight conditions. On account of these groups, we classified the TSS associations into three categories (condition-specific, condition-supported, and mixed) based on chosen cutoffs of Qi,tss. TSSs were declared condition-specific if 0 ≤ Qi,tss≤ 1, and there were less than two ESTs from other conditions, and condition-supported if 0 ≤ Qi,tss≤ 1, and more than two ESTs were generated from other conditions. We also classified TSSs as condition-supported if 1 ≤ Qi,tss< 10. TSSs with Qi,tss≥ 10, and those that were classified as specific or supported by more than two of the eight distinct conditions, were deemed to have mixed association. Finally, TSSs that were specific or supported by the diverse condition were assigned mixed association by default.
Evaluating temporal usage of promoters by Affymetrix tiling arrays
Our analysis is based on a published embryonic time course, and we evaluated promoter activity by using reported normalized intensity values of 25-bp long probes . The spatiotemporal utilization of the most upstream TSS in a broad TSS cluster group was chosen to characterize the whole group, as the low resolution of the Affymetrix tiles did not permit an evaluation of individual closely spaced TSSs. This resulted in 4,664 well-separated promoters. For each promoter, the median of fluorescence intensity of three downstream tiles of the TSS was subtracted from the median of fluorescence intensity of three upstream tiles from the TSS, with respect to the orientation of transcription. Tiles containing the TSS location were excluded from the analysis because we did not expect such probes to show consistent expression.
Due to the differing levels of total transcription across the 12 2-hour periods, cutoffs were determined independently for each time point. A mixture model of two Gaussians was fit to the differences of each time point using expectation maximization. The point of intersection of the two Gaussians was rounded up to the nearest.5 and declared the threshold (Additional data file 1). All promoters having differences greater than the threshold were deemed transcribed (T) for that time point. Promoters having differences in median fluorescence intensity less than the time point-specific threshold were declared non-transcribed (N). To determine the expected fraction of false predictions at these cutoffs, we randomly selected 4,664 random intergenic sites as a control dataset. For each of these sites, we evaluated the difference in fluorescence intensity by using the same methodology and threshold values, and assuming the sites had positive orientation.
The fraction of promoters transcribed at each time point was determined by dividing the number of transcribed promoters at each 2-hour period by the total number of promoters. A paired t-test was applied to the fractions of transcribed peaked versus broad promoters to evaluate statistical significance. The same strategy was used to compare the fraction of peaked versus broad promoters with embryo EST associations over all 12 time points, and to compare the total number of initiation sites with embryo EST associations to those without. For the evaluation of the association of both types of promoters with embryo and non-embryo ESTs associations, without the tiling array data, a χ2 test with Yates' continuity correction was applied. A Bonferroni correction was used in all tests, reducing the effective significance level to 0.01.
In the core promoter analysis, maternally inherited sites were defined as having utilization during time points 1 and/or 2 in the tiling array. Sites with zygotic transcription were required to have utilization during at least one 2-hour period from time points 4 through 12, and sites with both maternal and zygotic utilization needed to satisfy both requirements. The promoter element matches previously identified were summed up separately for these three sets. As the initiation pattern does not play a role with regard to random intergenic sites, the mean numbers of elements identified in the 1,299 random sites served as a baseline. To test the relationship between initiation pattern and condition, we summed the normalized frequencies of the location-specific motifs (TATA, INR, DPE, and MTE) and non-location bias motifs (Ohler 1, DRE, Ohler 6, Ohler 7) in peaked promoters with maternal (respectively zygotic) utilization, and in broad promoters with maternal (respectively zygotic) utilization, and performed a χ2 test on both 2 × 2 contingency tables.
Additional data files
The following additional data are available with the online version of this paper: Tables S1 to S4 and Figures S1 to S4, including detailed information on the comparison of the identified TSS locations to other genomic promoter resources and on the condition-specific activity of TSSs as determined by ESTs and tiling arrays (Additional data file 1); a list of the initial groupings of ESTs, the (sub-)clusters created after clustering, and the TSSs chosen from each (sub-)cluster (Additional data file 2); a list of the position weight matrices and the background models used in PATSER to search for motifs in the core promoters of the most 5' sites in Flybase, the identified TSSs, and the random intergenic sites (Additional data file 3); a list of the gene, chromosome, orientation, and condition association as determined by Shannon entropy for each individual TSS (Additional data file 4); a list of the gene, chromosome, orientation, and temporal pattern of utilization determined by the tiling arrays for peaked and broad promoters (Additional data file 5); a list of the patterns of utilization across the 12 development periods that occur at least 5 times in the set of peaked and broad promoters (Additional data file 6).
Berkeley Drosophila Genome Collection
capped analysis of gene expression
downstream core promoter element
DNA replication element
Eukaryotic Promoter Database
expressed sequence tag
motif ten element
- RNA pol II:
RNA polymerase II
TATA-box binding protein
TBP-related factor 2
transcription start site
- ttk tramtrack :
The authors thank Venky Iyer and Mike Eisen at the University of California, Berkeley for providing alignments of core promoters across the 12 Drosophila species. EAR thanks Fred Dietrich at Duke University for numerous discussions and guidance. Funding for this research was provided partly by a Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Triangle Community Foundation's George H Hitchings Young Investigator Award (EAR), and by NIH R01HG004065.
- Latchman D: Gene Regulation. 2005, London, UK: Taylor and FrancisGoogle Scholar
- Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P: Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2002, London, UK: Garland Science, 4Google Scholar
- Ohler U, Frith M: Models for complex eukaryotic regulatory DNA sequences. Information Processing and Living Systems. Edited by: Bajic VB, Tan TW. 2005, London, UK: Imperial College Press, 575-610.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Smale ST, Kadonaga JT: The RNA polymerase II core promoter. Annu Rev Biochem. 2003, 72: 449-479. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161520.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Carninci P, Kasukawa T, Katayama S, Gough J, Frith MC, Maeda N, Oyama R, Ravasi T, Lenhard B, Wells C, Kodzius R, Shimokawa K, Bajic VB, Brenner SE, Batalov S, Forrest AR, Zavolan M, Davis MJ, Wilming LG, Aidinis V, Allen JE, Ambesi-Impiombato A, Apweiler R, Aturaliya RN, Bailey TL, Bansal M, Baxter L, Beisel KW, Bersano T, Bono H, et al: The transcriptional landscape of the mammalian genome. Science. 2005, 309: 1559-1563. 10.1126/science.1112014.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Valen E, Pascarella G, Chalk A, Maeda N, Kojima M, Kawazu C, Murata M, Nishiyori H, Lazarevic D, Motti D, Marstrand TT, Tang MH, Zhao X, Krogh A, Winther O, Arakawa T, Kawai J, Wells C, Daub C, Harbers M, Hayashizaki Y, Gustincich S, Sandelin A, Carninci P: Genome-wide detection and analysis of hippocampus core promoters using DeepCAGE. Genome Res. 2009, 19: 255-265. 10.1101/gr.084541.108.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kimura K, Wakamatsu A, Suzuki Y, Ota T, Nishikawa T, Yamashita R, Yamamoto J, Sekine M, Tsuritani K, Wakaguri H, Ishii S, Sugiyama T, Saito K, Isono Y, Irie R, Kushida N, Yoneyama T, Otsuka R, Kanda K, Yokoi T, Kondo H, Wagatsuma M, Murakawa K, Ishida S, Ishibashi T, Takahashi-Fujii A, Tanase T, Nagai K, Kikuchi H, Nakai K, et al: Diversification of transcriptional modulation: large-scale identification and characterization of putative alternative promoters of human genes. Genome Res. 2006, 16: 55-65. 10.1101/gr.4039406.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schmid CD, Perier R, Praz V, Bucher P: EPD in its twentieth year: towards complete promoter coverage of selected model organisms. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34: D82-85. 10.1093/nar/gkj146.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Carninci P, Westover A, Nishiyama Y, Ohsumi T, Itoh M, Nagaoka S, Sasaki N, Okazaki Y, Muramatsu M, Schneider C, Hayashizaki Y: High efficiency selection of full-length cDNA by improved biotinylated cap trapper. DNA Res. 1997, 4: 61-66. 10.1093/dnares/4.1.61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhang Z, Dietrich FS: Mapping of transcription start sites in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using 5' SAGE. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33: 2838-2851. 10.1093/nar/gki583.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kawaji H, Frith MC, Katayama S, Sandelin A, Kai C, Kawai J, Carninci P, Hayashizaki Y: Dynamic usage of transcription start sites within core promoters. Genome Biol. 2006, 7: R118-10.1186/gb-2006-7-12-r118.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Carninci P, Sandelin A, Lenhard B, Katayama S, Shimokawa K, Ponjavic J, Semple CA, Taylor MS, Engstrom PG, Frith MC, Forrest AR, Alkema WB, Tan SL, Plessy C, Kodzius R, Ravasi T, Kasukawa T, Fukuda S, Kanamori-Katayama M, Kitazume Y, Kawaji H, Kai C, Nakamura M, Konno H, Nakano K, Mottagui-Tabar S, Arner P, Chesi A, Gustincich S, Persichetti F, et al: Genome-wide analysis of mammalian promoter architecture and evolution. Nat Genet. 2006, 38: 626-635. 10.1038/ng1789.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ponjavic J, Lenhard B, Kai C, Kawai J, Carninci P, Hayashizaki Y, Sandelin A: Transcriptional and structural impact of TATA-initiation site spacing in mammalian core promoters. Genome Biol. 2006, 7: R78-10.1186/gb-2006-7-8-r78.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Clark AG, Eisen MB, Smith DR, Bergman CM, Oliver B, Markow TA, Kaufman TC, Kellis M, Gelbart W, Iyer VN, Pollard DA, Sackton TB, Larracuente AM, Singh ND, Abad JP, Abt DN, Adryan B, Aguade M, Akashi H, Anderson WW, Aquadro CF, Ardell DH, Arguello R, Artieri CG, Barbash DA, Barker D, Barsanti P, Batterham P, Batzoglou S, Begun D, et al: Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny. Nature. 2007, 450: 203-218. 10.1038/nature06341.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stark A, Lin MF, Kheradpour P, Pedersen JS, Parts L, Carlson JW, Crosby MA, Rasmussen MD, Roy S, Deoras AN, Ruby JG, Brennecke J, Hodges E, Hinrichs AS, Caspi A, Paten B, Park SW, Han MV, Maeder ML, Polansky BJ, Robson BE, Aerts S, van Helden J, Hassan B, Gilbert DG, Eastman DA, Rice M, Weir M, Hahn MW, Park Y, et al: Discovery of functional elements in 12 Drosophila genomes using evolutionary signatures. Nature. 2007, 450: 219-232. 10.1038/nature06340.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Celniker SE, Wheeler DA, Kronmiller B, Carlson JW, Halpern A, Patel S, Adams M, Champe M, Dugan SP, Frise E, Hodgson A, George RA, Hoskins RA, Laverty T, Muzny DM, Nelson CR, Pacleb JM, Park S, Pfeiffer BD, Richards S, Sodergren EJ, Svirskas R, Tabor PE, Wan K, Stapleton M, Sutton GG, Venter C, Weinstock G, Scherer SE, Myers EW, et al: Finishing a whole-genome shotgun: release 3 of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatic genome sequence. Genome Biol. 2002, 3: RESEARCH0079-10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0079.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Juven-Gershon T, Hsu JY, Theisen JW, Kadonaga JT: The RNA polymerase II core promoter - the gateway to transcription. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2008, 20: 253-259. 10.1016/j.ceb.2008.03.003.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ohler U, Liao GC, Niemann H, Rubin GM: Computational analysis of core promoters in the Drosophila genome. Genome Biol. 2002, 3: RESEARCH0087-10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0087.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fitzgerald PC, Sturgill D, Shyakhtenko A, Oliver B, Vinson C: Comparative genomics of Drosophila and human core promoters. Genome Biol. 2006, 7: R53-10.1186/gb-2006-7-7-r53.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ohler U: Identification of core promoter modules in Drosophila and their application in accurate transcription start site prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34: 5943-5950. 10.1093/nar/gkl608.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Engstrom PG, Ho Sui SJ, Drivenes O, Becker TS, Lenhard B: Genomic regulatory blocks underlie extensive microsynteny conservation in insects. Genome Res. 2007, 17: 1898-1908. 10.1101/gr.6669607.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zeitlinger J, Stark A, Kellis M, Hong JW, Nechaev S, Adelman K, Levine M, Young RA: RNA polymerase stalling at developmental control genes in the Drosophila melanogaster embryo. Nat Genet. 2007, 39: 1512-1516. 10.1038/ng.2007.26.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mavrich TN, Jiang C, Ioshikhes IP, Li X, Venters BJ, Zanton SJ, Tomsho LP, Qi J, Glaser RL, Schuster SC, Gilmour DS, Albert I, Pugh BF: Nucleosome organization in the Drosophila genome. Nature. 2008, 453: 358-362. 10.1038/nature06929.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mito Y, Henikoff JG, Henikoff S: Genome-scale profiling of histone H3.3 replacement patterns. Nat Genet. 2005, 37: 1090-1097. 10.1038/ng1637.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Isogai Y, Keles S, Prestel M, Hochheimer A, Tjian R: Transcription of histone gene cluster by differential core-promoter factors. Genes Dev. 2007, 21: 2936-2949. 10.1101/gad.1608807.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Davuluri RV, Suzuki Y, Sugano S, Plass C, Huang TH: The functional consequences of alternative promoter use in mammalian genomes. Trends Genet. 2008, 24: 167-177. 10.1016/j.tig.2008.01.008.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Margolis JS, Borowsky M, Shim CW, Posakony JW: A small region surrounding the distal promoter of the hunchback gene directs maternal expression. Dev Biol. 1994, 163: 381-388. 10.1006/dbio.1994.1156.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Margolis JS, Borowsky ML, Steingrimsson E, Shim CW, Lengyel JA, Posakony JW: Posterior stripe expression of hunchback is driven from two promoters by a common enhancer element. Development. 1995, 121: 3067-3077.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Corbin V, Maniatis T: The role of specific enhancer-promoter interactions in the Drosophila Adh promoter switch. Genes Dev. 1989, 3: 2191-2120. 10.1101/gad.3.12b.2191.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Beckett D: Regulated assembly of transcription factors and control of transcription initiation. J Mol Biol. 2001, 314: 335-352. 10.1006/jmbi.2001.5134.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Remenyi A, Scholer HR, Wilmanns M: Combinatorial control of gene expression. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2004, 11: 812-815. 10.1038/nsmb820.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chintapalli VR, Wang J, Dow JA: Using FlyAtlas to identify better Drosophila melanogaster models of human disease. Nat Genet. 2007, 39: 715-720. 10.1038/ng2049.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Spellman PT, Rubin GM: Evidence for large domains of similarly expressed genes in the Drosophila genome. J Biol. 2002, 1: 5-10.1186/1475-4924-1-5.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Deato MD, Tjian R: Switching of the core transcription machinery during myogenesis. Genes Dev. 2007, 21: 2137-2149. 10.1101/gad.1583407.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Metcalf CE, Wassarman DA: DNA binding properties of TAF1 isoforms with two AT-hooks. J Biol Chem. 2006, 281: 30015-30023. 10.1074/jbc.M606289200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wilson RJ, Goodman JL, Strelets VB, FlyBase Consortium: FlyBase: integration and improvements to query tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, D588-593. 36 Database
- Wakaguri H, Yamashita R, Suzuki Y, Sugano S, Nakai K: DBTSS: database of transcription start sites, progress report 2008. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36: D97-101. 10.1093/nar/gkm901.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schmid CD, Praz V, Delorenzi M, Perier R, Bucher P: The Eukaryotic Promoter Database EPD: the impact of in silico primer extension. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32: D82-85. 10.1093/nar/gkh122.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stapleton M, Carlson J, Brokstein P, Yu C, Champe M, George R, Guarin H, Kronmiller B, Pacleb J, Park S, Wan K, Rubin GM, Celniker SE: A Drosophila full-length cDNA resource. Genome Biol. 2002, 3: RESEARCH0080-10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0080.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Manak JR, Dike S, Sementchenko V, Kapranov P, Biemar F, Long J, Cheng J, Bell I, Ghosh S, Piccolboni A, Gingeras TR: Biological function of unannotated transcription during the early development of Drosophila melanogaster. Nat Genet. 2006, 38: 1151-1158. 10.1038/ng1875.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nelson CE, Hersh BM, Carroll SB: The regulatory content of intergenic DNA shapes genome architecture. Genome Biol. 2004, 5: R25-10.1186/gb-2004-5-4-r25.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bucher P, Trifonov EN: Compilation and analysis of eukaryotic POL II promoter sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 1986, 14: 10009-10026. 10.1093/nar/14.24.10009.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Juven-Gershon T, Cheng S, Kadonaga JT: Rational design of a super core promoter that enhances gene expression. Nat Methods. 2006, 3: 917-922. 10.1038/nmeth937.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hochheimer A, Zhou S, Zheng S, Holmes MC, Tjian R: TRF2 associates with DREF and directs promoter-selective gene expression in Drosophila. Nature. 2002, 420: 439-445. 10.1038/nature01167.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Frith MC, Ponjavic J, Fredman D, Kai C, Kawai J, Carninci P, Hayashizaki Y, Sandelin A: Evolutionary turnover of mammalian transcription start sites. Genome Res. 2006, 16: 713-722. 10.1101/gr.5031006.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Araujo SJ, Cela C, Llimargas M: Tramtrack regulates different morphogenetic events during Drosophila tracheal development. Development. 2007, 134: 3665-3676. 10.1242/dev.007328.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bardin A, Le Borgne R, Schweisguth F: Asymmetric localization and function of cell-fate determinants: a fly's view. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004, 14: 6-14. 10.1016/j.conb.2003.12.002.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tomancak P, Beaton A, Weiszmann R, Kwan E, Shu S, Lewis SE, Richards S, Ashburner M, Hartenstein V, Celniker SE, Rubin GM: Systematic determination of patterns of gene expression during Drosophila embryogenesis. Genome Biol. 2002, 3: RESEARCH0088-10.1186/gb-2002-3-12-research0088.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Down TA, Bergman CM, Su J, Hubbard TJ: Large-scale discovery of promoter motifs in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Comput Biol. 2007, 3: e7-10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030007.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee AM, Wu CT: Enhancer-promoter communication at the yellow gene of Drosophila melanogaster: diverse promoters participate in and regulate trans interactions. Genetics. 2006, 174: 1867-1880. 10.1534/genetics.106.064121.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tomancak P, Berman BP, Beaton A, Weiszmann R, Kwan E, Hartenstein V, Celniker SE, Rubin GM: Global analysis of patterns of gene expression during Drosophila embryogenesis. Genome Biol. 2007, 8: R145-10.1186/gb-2007-8-7-r145.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Metcalf CE, Wassarman DA: Nucleolar colocalization of TAF1 and testis-specific TAFs during Drosophila spermatogenesis. Dev Dyn. 2007, 236: 2836-2843. 10.1002/dvdy.21294.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhu Q, Halfon MS: Complex organizational structure of the genome revealed by genome-wide analysis of single and alternative promoters in Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Genomics. 2009, 10: 9-10.1186/1471-2164-10-9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hsu JY, Juven-Gershon T, Marr MT, Wright KJ, Tjian R, Kadonaga JT: TBP, Mot1, and NC2 establish a regulatory circuit that controls DPE-dependent versus TATA-dependent transcription. Genes Dev. 2008, 22: 2353-2358. 10.1101/gad.1681808.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rach E: Power Law Distributions of Gene Family Sizes. 2004, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PresGoogle Scholar
- Koonin EV, Wolf YI, Karev GP: The structure of the protein universe and genome evolution. Nature. 2002, 420: 218-223. 10.1038/nature01256.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee DH, Gershenzon N, Gupta M, Ioshikhes IP, Reinberg D, Lewis BA: Functional characterization of core promoter elements: the downstream core element is recognized by TAF1. Mol Cell Biol. 2005, 25: 9674-9686. 10.1128/MCB.25.21.9674-9686.2005.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tweedie S, Ng HH, Barlow AL, Turner BM, Hendrich B, Bird A: Vestiges of a DNA methylation system in Drosophila melanogaster?. Nat Genet. 1999, 23: 389-390. 10.1038/70490.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang Y, Jorda M, Jones PL, Maleszka R, Ling X, Robertson HM, Mizzen CA, Peinado MA, Robinson GE: Functional CpG methylation system in a social insect. Science. 2006, 314: 645-647. 10.1126/science.1135213.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Moses AM, Pollard DA, Nix DA, Iyer VN, Li XY, Biggin MD, Eisen MB: Large-scale turnover of functional transcription factor binding sites in Drosophila. PLoS Comput Biol. 2006, 2: e130-10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020130.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Huang W, Nevins JR, Ohler U: Phylogenetic simulation of promoter evolution: estimation and modeling of binding site turnover events and assessment of their impact on alignment tools. Genome Biol. 2007, 8: R225-10.1186/gb-2007-8-10-r225.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pollard DA, Moses AM, Iyer VN, Eisen MB: Detecting the limits of regulatory element conservation and divergence estimation using pairwise and multiple alignments. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006, 7: 376-10.1186/1471-2105-7-376.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tsuritani K, Irie T, Yamashita R, Sakakibara Y, Wakaguri H, Kanai A, Mizushima-Sugano J, Sugano S, Nakai K, Suzuki Y: Distinct class of putative "non-conserved" promoters in humans: comparative studies of alternative promoters of human and mouse genes. Genome Res. 2007, 17: 1005-1014. 10.1101/gr.6030107.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Liang H, Lin YS, Li WH: Fast evolution of core promoters in primate genomes. Mol Biol Evol. 2008, 25: 1239-1244. 10.1093/molbev/msn072.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gross P, Oelgeschlager T: Core promoter-selective RNA polymerase II transcription. Biochem Soc Symp. 2006, 225-236.Google Scholar
- Butler JE, Kadonaga JT: Enhancer-promoter specificity mediated by DPE or TATA core promoter motifs. Genes Dev. 2001, 15: 2515-2519. 10.1101/gad.924301.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ohtsuki S, Levine M: GAGA mediates the enhancer blocking activity of the eve promoter in the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev. 1998, 12: 3325-3330. 10.1101/gad.12.21.3325.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Martens JA, Laprade L, Winston F: Intergenic transcription is required to repress the Saccharomyces cerevisiae SER3 gene. Nature. 2004, 429: 571-574. 10.1038/nature02538.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hiller M, Chen X, Pringle MJ, Suchorolski M, Sancak Y, Viswanathan S, Bolival B, Lin TY, Marino S, Fuller MT: Testis-specific TAF homologs collaborate to control a tissue-specific transcription program. Development. 2004, 131: 5297-5308. 10.1242/dev.01314.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hernandez G, Vazquez-Pianzola P, Sierra JM, Rivera-Pomar R: Internal ribosome entry site drives cap-independent translation of reaper and heat shock protein 70 mRNAs in Drosophila embryos. RNA. 2004, 10: 1783-1797. 10.1261/rna.7154104.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vazquez-Pianzola P, Hernandez G, Suter B, Rivera-Pomar R: Different modes of translation for hid, grim and sickle mRNAs in Drosophila. Cell Death Differ. 2007, 14: 286-295. 10.1038/sj.cdd.4401990.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ahsan B, Saito TL, Hashimoto S, Muramatsu K, Tsuda M, Sasaki A, Matsushima K, Aigaki T, Morishita S: MachiBase: a Drosophila melanogaster 5'-end mRNA transcription database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37: D49-53. 10.1093/nar/gkn694.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hertz GZ, Stormo GD: Identifying DNA and protein patterns with statistically significant alignments of multiple sequences. Bioinformatics. 1999, 15: 563-577. 10.1093/bioinformatics/15.7.563.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brudno M, Do CB, Cooper GM, Kim MF, Davydov E, Green ED, Sidow A, Batzoglou S: LAGAN and Multi-LAGAN: efficient tools for large-scale multiple alignment of genomic DNA. Genome Res. 2003, 13: 721-731. 10.1101/gr.926603.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schug J, Schuller WP, Kappen C, Salbaum JM, Bucan M, Stoeckert CJ: Promoter features related to tissue specificity as measured by Shannon entropy. Genome Biol. 2005, 6: R33-10.1186/gb-2005-6-4-r33.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project. [http://www.fruitfly.org]
- Zhang Z, Dietrich FS: Identification and characterization of upstream open reading frames (uORF) in the 5' untranslated regions (UTR) of genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Curr Genet. 2005, 48: 77-87. 10.1007/s00294-005-0001-x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schmid CD, Sengstag T, Bucher P, Delorenzi M: MADAP, a flexible clustering tool for the interpretation of one-dimensional genome annotation data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35: W201-205. 10.1093/nar/gkm343.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ: Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990, 215: 403-410.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ma C, Lyons-Weiler M, Liang W, LaFramboise W, Gilbertson JR, Becich MJ, Monzon FA: In vitro transcription amplification and labeling methods contribute to the variability of gene expression profiling with DNA microarrays. J Mol Diagn. 2006, 8: 183-192. 10.2353/jmoldx.2006.050077.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Berendzen KW, Stuber K, Harter K, Wanke D: Cis-motifs upstream of the transcription and translation initiation sites are effectively revealed by their positional disequilibrium in eukaryote genomes using frequency distribution curves. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006, 7: 522-10.1186/1471-2105-7-522.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA, Hill DP, Issel-Tarver L, Kasarskis A, Lewis S, Matese JC, Richardson JE, Ringwald M, Rubin GM, Sherlock G: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000, 25: 25-29. 10.1038/75556.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Klipper-Aurbach Y, Wasserman M, Braunspiegel-Weintrob N, Borstein D, Peleg S, Assa S, Karp M, Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y, Laron Z: Mathematical formulae for the prediction of the residual beta cell function during the first two years of disease in children and adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Med Hypotheses. 1995, 45: 486-490. 10.1016/0306-9877(95)90228-7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Landry JR, Mager DL, Wilhelm BT: Complex controls: the role of alternative promoters in mammalian genomes. Trends Genet. 2003, 19: 640-648. 10.1016/j.tig.2003.09.014.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Schier AF: The maternal-zygotic transition: death and birth of RNAs. Science. 2007, 316: 406-407. 10.1126/science.1140693.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Renzis S, Elemento O, Tavazoie S, Wieschaus EF: Unmasking activation of the zygotic genome using chromosomal deletions in the Drosophila embryo. PLoS Biol. 2007, 5: e117-10.1371/journal.pbio.0050117.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Loseva O, Engstrom Y: Analysis of signal-dependent changes in the proteome of Drosophila blood cells during an immune response. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2004, 3: 796-808. 10.1074/mcp.M400028-MCP200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Beller M, Riedel D, Jansch L, Dieterich G, Wehland J, Jackle H, Kuhnlein RP: Characterization of the Drosophila lipid droplet subproteome. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2006, 5: 1082-1094. 10.1074/mcp.M600011-MCP200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Royce TE, Rozowsky JS, Bertone P, Samanta M, Stolc V, Weissman S, Snyder M, Gerstein M: Issues in the analysis of oligonucleotide tiling microarrays for transcript mapping. Trends Genet. 2005, 21: 466-475. 10.1016/j.tig.2005.06.007.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kampa D, Cheng J, Kapranov P, Yamanaka M, Brubaker S, Cawley S, Drenkow J, Piccolboni A, Bekiranov S, Helt G, Tammana H, Gingeras TR: Novel RNAs identified from an in-depth analysis of the transcriptome of human chromosomes 21 and 22. Genome Res. 2004, 14: 331-342. 10.1101/gr.2094104.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bertone P, Stolc V, Royce TE, Rozowsky JS, Urban AE, Zhu X, Rinn JL, Tongprasit W, Samanta M, Weissman S, Gerstein M, Snyder M: Global identification of human transcribed sequences with genome tiling arrays. Science. 2004, 306: 2242-2246. 10.1126/science.1103388.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zavolan M, Kondo S, Schonbach C, Adachi J, Hume DA, Hayashizaki Y, Gaasterland T: Impact of alternative initiation, splicing, and termination on the diversity of the mRNA transcripts encoded by the mouse transcriptome. Genome Res. 2003, 13: 1290-1300. 10.1101/gr.1017303.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chern TM, Paul N, van Nimwegen E, Zavolan M: Computational analysis of full-length cDNAs reveals frequent coupling between transcriptional and splicing programs. DNA Res. 2008, 15: 63-72. 10.1093/dnares/dsm036.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cramer P, Caceres JF, Cazalla D, Kadener S, Muro AF, Baralle FE, Kornblihtt AR: Coupling of transcription with alternative splicing: RNA pol II promoters modulate SF2/ASF and 9G8 effects on an exonic splicing enhancer. Mol Cell. 1999, 4: 251-258. 10.1016/S1097-2765(00)80372-X.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gendra E, Colgan DF, Meany B, Konarska MM: A sequence motif in the simian virus 40 (SV40) early core promoter affects alternative splicing of transcribed mRNA. J Biol Chem. 2007, 282: 11648-11657. 10.1074/jbc.M611126200.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.